The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept - canon -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:35, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I am against the deletion of this page, and any other additional information on the Malfoy family. I know it is a spoiler, and I will put pottermore spoiler alerts. It is in Chamber of Secrets, chapter 4, moment 4 "Lucius Malfoy", The Malfoy family, New from JK Rowling. SorenaJ (talk) 17:21, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets hasn't been released on Pottermore yet! I know Slytherin is supposed to get a 24-hour advance, but I checked on the Pottermore Insider and all it says is that this week they're working on sound effects for one of the chapters. If Chamber of Secrets were ready, it would be plastered all over the Insider and the blogosphere. So unless you can point me to a legitimate source stating that they've released it, you're not convincing me you have access to it, and this stuff you're posting is fanon. It has the general hallmarks of fanon, anyway. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:26, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems I was mistaken. I just checked on Pottermore and apparently it has in fact been released. Very odd that they would just release it without making any sort of announcement. Oh, and please don't delete another poster's comments. I admit I have to eat crow on this one, but comments are not to be removed once they've been posted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:43, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry I deleted your comment, it was an accident, I deleted my own comment as well. I have put pottermore spoiler alerts on the Malfoy pages. Yes, it is odd with no announcements. I will try to make any future article more supported and less fanon-like. SorenaJ (talk) 17:49, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Moved and marked for future merging per Notability guidelines -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:41, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Studying girls has been a candidate for deletion for over a month. Any input on whether it should be deleted or not? --Texthawm ^{(Owl Me)} 23:16, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. There is no specification of who these girls are so its not important enough to keep.

Ginny101 00:34, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't seem relevant enough for its own article, not to mention the fact, that it's just a group of girls looking at some books, to me, they could be looking at anything, not necesarily even studying.

 BachLynn23  Send me an Owl!  The worst failure, is the failure to try.  19:27,1/25/2012 

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:33, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

An absolutely bizarre and pointless article. All it says is that Dobby owned a pair of shoes after being freed by the Malfoy's. If this stays, then we'll be seeing articles like "Ron's wellington boots" and "Hermione's spare Hogwarts robes" appearing soon. 82.42.249.145 17:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, I think articles should be made for clothing only if it's useful and the clothing is memorable in the film. By useful, I mean it explained to some who may not know about the difference they saw in Dobby's atire in Part 1. And if they look at Dobby's clothes, it's linked in case they want to know more about it. *Luna^{(I suspect Nargles are behind it...)} 18:02, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

No other character has an article for a non-significant piece of their clothing. Keeping this article would be like having one for Ron Weasley's robes or Hermione's coat. I agree that it is fairly pointless.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 20:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Luna, you say it is linked in case they want to know more about it. That would be fair enough, but the article doesn't give any more information about it. It just says he owned a pair of shoes. That's it. 82.42.249.145 19:52, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

It is major step owning clothes though for Dobby as it shows he is free. I think this page should be kept.Happydementor 16:18, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

It would seem, in any case, that the decision was keep. The article doesn't have a delete tag on it anymore and hasn't in months. ProfessorTofty 01:21, November 1, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept, moved to Christian J. Simpson -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:42, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this source is good enough. It's your decision. source: http://scificonventionsigners.weebly.com/christian-j-simpson.html Harry granger 18:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

No consensus; kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:32, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

This entrance is NOT the Trainings Grounds Tower like you said. This is the Trainings Grounds tower:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lestrange97 (talk • contribs).Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Still looks a lot like the same building, or a slightly different design of it to me. The Training Grounds Way image looks to be from one of the games and there are lots of differences between building designs in the games and movies. Shorty1982 15:40, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oh came on, Training Grounds Tower is so so much bigger than the other, look to the photo of Aerial Viez of the Greenhouses, and you will see where is the building I say.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lestrange97 (talk • contribs).Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see they are at least extremely similar, if not the same. The community will make the final decision. Please always sign talk page entries with 4 tildes (~). -Shorty1982 16:06, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

And, Thank you by your opinion Lestrange97 16:18, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted by Cavalier One -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:32, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Charity Burbage's wand. I think it should be deleted because it is a fanon. No one knows what her wand is, it never mentions it. Why should he have a page for something he doesnt know exists when fanons are being deleted?

AmbroseLestrange502 02:24, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Improved and kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:09, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

What I can not understand, is why there are pages like Unidentified 1996 quidditch spectator students, that don't have any images, and this page, that also, this woman is the only know female Snatcher, can not be in the wiki. Lestrange97 20:22, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

But I do not understand why there may be other pages that do not even have a photo and is not already a party, is one of the few women that are Snatcher.

The article you mentioned is also a candidate for deletion. The fact that this Snatcher is a woman in no way justifies having an article about her. There were hundreads of Snatchers at the Battle of Hogwarts, many of them female. Unless you propose having articles on each and every one of them your argument is somewhat feeble. Jayden Matthews 20:30, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Marked for future merging per Notability guidelines -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:07, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think that this page is quite interesting, as a Priori Incantatem may have occured, and this is quite rare. --

This should stay, as there is a picture and he is duelling a Death Eater. He appeared, making him notable.

This should not be deleted it is asimple fun page for anyone to look and have fun.

MissHowelly 17:46, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

I do not think the Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers page should be deleted because what if people who want to see the Defence Against the Dark Arts theachers' demises, and it does not show? Then they should look at the Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers page, where it has all the teachers'(excluding flashbacks) demises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tubeyou0417 (talk • contribs).

The demise of each of them is at least mentioned, if not gone into great detail, on their respective pages. We don't make articles that only list things like this, that is what categories are for and we already have a "Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts" category. -Shorty1982 00:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unnecessary. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:59, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:25, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

While I've certainly been on record as having stricter standards for notability, in this case, I actually favor keep for the article. As with urine, just because certain subjects may seem juvenile or silly to some doesn't necessarily mean that makes them unworthy of an article. Additionally, the article seems to be well-sourced and deals in fact, rather than speculative information. ProfessorTofty 23:17, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:58, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

no articles on Panties yet? :p --Cometstyles 01:00, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Underwear article should be deleted because we all wear underwear it might be considered taboo to talk about underwear but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk or write about underwear. Charmedh2ogirl 16:33, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ProfessorTofty ; when it's done properly, hyperinclusionism is not a crime. If worded and sourced properly, we should keep it. LelalMekha 21:38, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted by Cavalier One -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:04, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

• Stated to be redundant, as we have page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts. But page Category:Defence Against the Dark Arts Professors at Hogwarts does not list the DADA teachers in time order, and it brings together the information about them. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

My Wiki Page. The Deathly Hallow Role Play Game is directly linked to Harry Potter for the fact that the game is based after the Book written by J.K. Rowling. I see no reason why it should be deleated. It is a perfectly honest and straight forward page. It allows the fans of Harry Potter and the other characters to induldge themselves in the experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Deathly Hallows Admin (talk • contribs).

Nothing against the RPG, of course, but we host information about the Harry Potter books, films and games. Fanon-related articles are only for the most notable examples of fan organisations and/or individuals (such as Potter Puppet Pals, or Steve Vander Ark). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

I think Bean Bonus Room has been expanded enough to have its deletion candidacy removed. GhostUser 00:37, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good article now. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't stick around. ProfessorTofty 00:39, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

It is a valid article, I don't even know why it was marked for deletion in the first place (seeing as stub articles are not to be deleted simply because of their small size). Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:43, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted by Cavalier One -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:02, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Arantes was just created and is up as a candidate. This may not be a J. K. Rowling Wiki, but she does have everything to do with Harry Potter. Therefore, her family has something to do with it. There are some pretty unrelated articles on here, much more unrelated then J. K. Rowling's own daughter! -- A Wikia contributer 15:18, December 15, 2011 (PST)

But how exactly? And that is exactly the point - we are a Harry Potter wiki and if we're going to have an article, the it needs to be shown that there actually is a connection to Harry Potter. All the page is really says is "this is her daughter and this is her biographical information." If we were to keep the article, then where exactly does it end? Do we start having articles about her other children? About her husbands? ProfessorTofty 23:26, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ProfessorTofty. Just because she is related to J. K. Rowling doesn't mean we should have an article about her. People come to this wiki to find information about Harry Potter and related things, not Rowling's family. AFAIK she has zero connection to the Harry Potter universe other than being related to its creator. -Shorty1982 23:30, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above (which I agree with), see Forum:Articles on JKR's Family for an discussion on this subject a couple years back in the Wizengamot Archive. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 00:57, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure Jessica Arantes is covered on this, but would an article on her be valid if she was one of the people JKR dedicated one of the HP books? Do the wiki have articles on people the books are dedicated to? Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 03:59, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

She's one of the people that the dedication in Deathly Hallows is "split seven ways" to. Book dedications is mentioned in the forum thread that was linked to as being "not totally ridiculous," but I still think it doesn't really add much value to thewi. As was said, anything like that can be mentioned in the behind the scenes sections; it doesn't merit an article in and of itself. ProfessorTofty 05:01, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

I'm moving this to the bottom because it was originally posted at the top of the page and I think it might have gotten lost in the shuffle because of that. It seems to be generally agreed based on past practises that we do not have articles about Jo's family members - in fact, I seem to recall an article being deleted in the not-to-recent past for similar reasons. ProfessorTofty 01:56, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:22, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the candidacy of article "Hogwarts' big tree near the Black Lake" to be deleted because it is a specific object associated with Hogwarts (like e.g. the Whoomping Willow), which appears several times in series (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, the Order of the Phoenix) and it might have found there many information about what did happened in its surroundings (1996, James Potter's school time etc.) Colin Fletcher 20:55, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. 85.219.7.155

As the one who originally added the tag, I agree. I was originally unclear as to the scope of the subject's importance (I recalled it appearing in Snape's memories, but did not remember its later appearances in the present day). As it has been cleaned up substantially, I see no reason to delete it now (and, indeed, it appears the tag has already been removed). -- 1337star (Owl Post) 22:09, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:58, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. This character is acted and occurs twice and has a significant part in the action. Anthony Appleyard 10:17, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, keep. If the reasoning applied onto this page was applied to every single page, then there would be none of these random pages about minor characters. AlastorMoody 00:50, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the page was only marked for deletion in the first place because teharticle was very poorly formed when it was created. As it stands now, it's no more or less bad than any of the other umpteen articles about unidentified characters. ProfessorTofty 19:10, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for deletion. It is never stated it is an exclusively "Weasley" sign (like the initial in lieu of family crest, or something) and, without a proper source to this, it is nothing more than a capital "W". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:45, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's nothing more than a stylized W, anyone could use it and people would have reason to think it was associated with the Weasleys unless they had some other information that would lead them to believe that. ProfessorTofty 19:10, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Any objections? Shall the article be deleted? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:48, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

If anything, the "W" is more the mark of the twins and their business since it seems to figure prominently on their products from what I recall. However, even if this is the case, then I can't see a reason for a separate article. Maybe some mention in the Weasley Wizarding Wheezes article, but that would be it. - Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 08:24, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

And that makes three. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:01, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:26, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep, no reason whatsoever to delete. I'd just remove the tag without discussion, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do so. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 22:47, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:17, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

If it really is on Pottermore, then I'm all for it sticking around. But anyone can say that anything is on Pottermore and that doesn't make it true unless we have some sources somewhere that say that it actually is, and I can't find any. And if the only claim to this is because Ebony is on Pottermore, then that's definitely no go - just because a certain type of Ebony tree happens to be found in Sri Lanka isn't enough to merit an article on the country if it isn't otherwise mentioned. ProfessorTofty 06:11, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

There is more information to the article. Ceylon ebony is a mentioned wood that appeared on Pottermore in the ebony wood section. It even is mentioned on the Ebony page on Harry Potter wiki. There are several pages that have information that is pointless but still have a page for it. It's not like I'm creating pages about countries that have no relation with the Harry Potter universe. Don't delete it. Last time I created this page (4 times) it was deleted 4 times by Seth Cooper without having any thorough look at it. I could always include information like in the Behind the scenes part like how it is a country that has had the Harry Potter books published in another language. I also have evidence for that, it's mentioned on Jk Rowling's official website. Please don't delete it, please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.150.202 (talk • contribs).

It was deleted again, which would suggest that it was on its face found to not meet inclusion standards. Again, simply being the home of a subtype of a particular wand wood does not make it something that would be included, nor does being one of the umpteen countries where the books are published. Nor does a page simply being small or containing information you think is "pointless" mean that it doesn't get included. The key is that it has to be mentioned in canon. ProfessorTofty 17:11, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

To merit inclusion, the subject of an article must be mentioned in canon. "Ebony" is mentioned in Pottermore, "Sri Lanka" not so much. That's why it got deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:17, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Failed to present verification for a week; deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:08, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Not to even mention what an awful title this is ("Collapse of the North Tower" would sound much nicer), it has no basis in canon whatsoever. Harry never singlehandedly destroys the North Tower. Either I missed something that big in the film or it is complete fanonical nonsense. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:40, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry me, but I have to correct you. In the last video game, just when Harry arrives near a hole on the Quad Balconies, a spell that cames from the bottom of the Quad; hit the tower, making it fall to the Path to the Boathouse. Lestrange97 20:29, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I've played through the game more than once (I quite liked the Battle of Hogwarts levels) and I've never noticed such a thing; the only thing I can remember is a spell smashing part of the roof at the Quad battlements, nothing more. Can you please provide some evidence (i.e. game pictures, or Youtube videos)? Anyway, even if that is true, the article did mess things up by saying that was Harry's doing; you can't just expect us to believe the article is right when it is fundamentally wrong. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:38, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Played that level through again today and, no, haven't seen anything as described in the article. I'm more and more inclined for deletion. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:17, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept, for the time being. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:08, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Why is the deletion tag on this article? There are so many Wrock bands, why should this be deleted?  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 16:33, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as being obviously illegitimate. Under the proposed new notability guidelines, it's possible a number of these wrock band articles would be deleted. But until those are in effect, I don't see anything about this particular wrock band article that makes it different from any of the others, and therefore be singled out for deletion. ProfessorTofty 17:25, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should delete this article or not. The fact that it is capitalised in the source (see it here) makes it a canon, wandlore-specific term. Either we keep it or we delete it and just mention it on the wand core page, it's fine by me either way. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:08, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think just a simple disambig page would be fine. Something to the effect of "Garrick Ollivander believed in the concept of three Supreme Cores that were superior to all other wand cores. These cores were:" and then listing the three. But I don't know. The same logic technically applies to the Deathly Hallows: there's not much to say about them together that can't be said about the three separately, but we have a detailed article there that is separate of the three. But I suppose one could argue that's not quite the same concept. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:18, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that "Deathly Hallows" covers a much more complex and relevant part of the series, but then again, we have articles like on families that present no information that it is not already present on the family members' pages (and are not, after all, that important to the books/films/games as a whole). I'm more inclined to keep this article, though. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:37, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree, if we have articles like "Deathly Hallows" that just summarise information that is already mentioned elsewhere, then I don't see any reason not to keep this. ProfessorTofty 22:47, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we have articles like "Unforgivable Curses" and no one objects to them, we should keep this one. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:54, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:18, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hemani Roshan Wand needs to be deleted as it hasn't been said in the books, film or games so this page is not true

Football444 20:07, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

An Anti Dark Mark Spell? I was under the impression that the characters were raising their wands as a tribute to Dumbledore. True, the Dark Mark did part, but I was under thte impression this was more for the purposes of the story than because of any sort of implied spell. There was no jet of light or anything else to indicate the casting of a spell, nor is it normally indicated that a spell would be cast by a large group of people. I suppose there could be a spell, but I don't know that we can imply something that doesn't necessarily exist. ProfessorTofty 05:01, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, we do have spells that have no visible jet of light (in the books, anyway) and instances of spells being cast by multiple people to combat large targets. That said, I'm on the fence about this one. I'm weakly for deletion unless someone can provide a source from the directors/cast saying this was intended as a spell, or someone gives more compelling evidence for it being one. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:36, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point about the Hover Charm and the Stunning spells. Still, like you, I'm having trouble seeing this as an actual spell. Even if a spell was cast, who's to say that the spell necessarily combats the Dark Mark specifically? After all, the books indicate that the Dark Mark had not been seen since the Death Eaters went into hiding, so how likely is it that more than a few of the people there would know a spell that would be specifically used to repel the Dark Mark? ProfessorTofty 06:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just rewatched this part on ABC Family, and I immediately move to keep. McGonagall is the first to raise her wand, and a small pinprick of light appears on the tip. Pan up to the Dark Mark, and a similar pinprick appears in the center of it, which only widens as the others raise their wands. Obviously a spell. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 07:49, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Good observation. Alright, I'll withdraw the deletion and do a bit of fixing up on the article. I've also made "Dark Mark anti-curse" into a redirect - which was just created yesterday and a I realised was what brought my attention to the page in the first place. ProfessorTofty 14:16, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I added a photo of Irma Pince and it's says it's a canidate for deletion, the reason being it is a duplicate image. I haven't found a photo that is the same so I'm wondering why it has been marked that.

Shadow Seer 22:37, February 21, 2012 (UTC)Shadow Seer

It appears to be the same as this photo here. ProfessorTofty 22:41, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Merged to hub article per notability guidelines -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:56, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think all the following pages: Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student, Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (II), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (III), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (IV), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (V), Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VI), and Unidentified 1996 Quidditch practice spectator student (VII) should be deleted. They bear no information, or photos because they were background characters. They're just seem kind of cluttery and unessicary. Shadow Seer 03:28, February 25, 2012 (UTC)Shadow Seer

Yeah, we've been having something of a proliferation of articles regarding subjects that are of dubious interest at best. If this sort of thing concerns you, I recommend you visit this here. It's a discussion about a proposed policy for notability and I think it's about time for a final vote. You may want to read over what's been proposed, though I'm not sure if you qualify yet to vote on something like that under our guidelines, because you're still relatively new. As for the articles in question here, though, yeah, I completely agree. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they were 86'ed with all possible haste. ProfessorTofty 04:13, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should delete these pages at last. It is clear that they don't meet any criteria of notability, so there's no use in having them here. If I were supposed to leave any mention of them, I'd create something like List of Quidditch practice spectators with insterting each specartor's image. Colin Fletcher † Owl Post 16:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think everybody's views should be considered. I would like them to be left. I don't see any harm in doing so. It's this depth of information that makes me enjoy this wiki!Marktheseeker 20:07, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Done - all pages redirected to new article 1996 Gryffindor Quidditch Keeper Trials Spectators per notability guidelines. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:23, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:16, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I created a page for my webseries: Life After Howarts, Epsiode 1: Harry Potter Goes To Thearpy. It's up for deletion. Here is the page.

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Life_After_Hogwarts_-_Harry_Potter_Goes_To_Therapy

Please don't delete it. And what does "non notable fan work" mean, exactly?

It means precisely what it says. We only allow pages for very large fan works that are well known (MuggleNet, the Harry Potter Lexicon, etc.). This most certainly is not the place to promote your webseries; I would suggest doing that elsewhere. EDIT: Oh, wait, I almost forgot. You CAN put a link and a short description of it here if you insist on trying to promote it here, but that's it. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 19:04, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted by Cubs Fan2007, content mentioned in Behind the scenes section of "Dinosaur" -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:55, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting part of the Harry Potter fandom, with JKR being honored and having talked about it. No other book or fandom has a dinosaur named after it. Just because it is not part of the books does not mean it has nothing to do with Harry Potter. It is a honor to her and to us. There is no valid reason to delete it. Sev Lover Forever 04:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I actually nominated this for deletion for the purpose of discussion, so we can set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. I'm actually genuinely interested in whether the community thinks this sort of thing is worth an article or not. I'm currently leaning towards delete, but with a mention on the BTS section of the Hogwarts article, but I'd love to see other opinions. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 05:24, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think it should have it's own page because its so unique. I don't think there is anything else in the fandom like it, and I don't know another fandom who has a dinosaur. I don't think it would work in the BTS section because it doesn't have to do with Hogwarts the building/school, to me Hogwartsia is symbolic for JKR's entire world. I mean, Twilight and the Hunger Games are also big, but things like this is what makes Harry Potter stand out as something special, something that will go down in history. Sev Lover Forever 16:04, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is such a game known as LEGO Harry Potter: The Original Years. For more information on it, go to the LEGO Harry Potter Wiki - http://legoharrypotteryears1-4videogame.wikia.com/wiki/LEGO_Harry_Potter:_The_Original_Years And, to be clear, I am NOT the person who added the page. I am merely disagreeing with its deletion. AlastorMoody 03:33, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

This is also the only place that indicates such a thing, and wikis are not reliable sources. No reputable site I can find has said anything about such a game's existence. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 03:51, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. AlastorMoody 17:55, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

• It is Polish language. It says "type websites, where content can be created and changed easily and quickly, from a web browser, using a simple markup language or a WYSIWYG editor. Wikis, because of its specificity, are primarily used to work on joint projects, such as repositories of knowledge on a topic or projects of various social groups.

  Wiki name comes from the Hawaiian phrase wiki wiki, meaning fast. The author of the concept and the concept is Ward Cunningham, who in 1994 for the Portland Pattern Repository wrote the software WikiWikiWeb.". Anthony Appleyard 15:35, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:54, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Not canon

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept per notability guidelines, no consensus to delete -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:29, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Billy and Mandy really has nothing to do with Harry Potter. Out of 172 episodes, 4 contain references to Harry Potter, and even then the characters are parodies of Harry Potter characters rather than the literal characters. Harry Potter is a major part of pop culture, and has been referenced by countless TV shows. If we include Billy and Mandy then we also have to include American Dad, since Steve went to Hogwarts(sort of); Doctor Who, since Shakespeare used Expelliarmus to stop some witches; the Simpsons since their Angelica Button series is an obvious parody of Harry Potter, the characters read the Harry Potter series occasssionally, they once met JK Rowling, and one of their Halloween episodes was a spoof of Harry Potter; and pretty much every children's show made in the last ten years. Maybe it would make sense to have a page titled Shows that have Parodied Harry Potter, or something like that, but we shouldn't just make a page for every show that includes Harry Potter references.Icecreamdif 23:34, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:40, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to delete the article. Even the term is cannon. Rowling refers to them as such in this interview. And if we delete it, we could also delete Professor, Headmaster, Head of House, Librarian or Caretaker.--Rodolphus 14:58, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

The only issue I saw was the lack of appearances, which I've now added. Could be a decent article, given some work. There's certainately no reason to delete, as the term is canon. Jayden Matthews 16:19, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

And that makes three: I'm for keeping the article as well. As Rodolphus pointed out, it would make no sense whatsoever to delete this article and keep all the articles he mentioned. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:40, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:54, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

G3 C535 21:14, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Apparently a category which was removed -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:07, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why is it useless, it is for those (Regulus Black and Albus Dumbledore) who discovered that Voldemort had horcruxes. Are categories like 'Draco Malfoy's romantic relationships' or 'Horcrux Destroyers' any less useless?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:35, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should not have articles originating from baseless speculation. In this case, the first letter is almost completely obscured - we can't even be sure that it says "DART." And even if we could, we still have no idea if it's a company or something completely different. It could be an acronym for some other organization, sort of like F.A.R.T., or a slogan of some sort. Speedy deletion, if you ask me. ProfessorTofty 16:57, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:31, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Troll bogeys should not be deleted. Harry potter specifically mentions them during the trio's battle with the troll. Harry, Ron, and Hermione all express disgust at troll bogeys, so it clearly affects them Flozzlenoozle 22:53, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Troll bogeys are relevant. Harry specifically mentions them during the battle with the troll. Flozzlenoozle 22:54, April 28, 2012 (UTC)Flozzlenoozle

Mrmm, simply because something is mentioned doesn't necessarily mean that it's notable. I could see the point of an article if they were, say, used in potions, or act as a poison, or somethng. But as it stands, they're simply mentioned and nothing else. ProfessorTofty 05:28, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I posted a deletion tag is that it is just a minor comment made during the first film with and that it is purely nonsense. Besides there is too little detail anyway and I agree with ProfessorTofty's comment above. -Adv193 05:49, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Why delete it though? It is a legitamite part of the book and film, and is doing no harm on the site. It actually commands a few lines of text from the chapter "Halloween" in the first bookon pages 176-177:

It was Hermione who spoke first.

"Is it -- dead?"

"I don't think so," said Harry, "I think it's just been knocked out."

He bent down and pulled his wand out of the troll's nose. It was covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.

"Ugh - troll boogers."

He wiped it on the troll's trousers.

Why delete it? Because it adds nothing substantive of interest to the wiki and it sets a bad precedent. Again, just because something is mentioned does not mean that it's notable. Now, I've argued before for the inclusion of certain articles that some people felt shouldn't remain, because they provided information that was actually of interest. But there's nothing in this article that can't simply be mentioned on the page for "Troll" or really warrants the existence of a separate article. ProfessorTofty 02:27, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about them on the troll page. Flozzlenoozle 02:46, May 6, 2012 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flozzlenoozle (talk • contribs).

That doesn't mean that you can't add something about it, though. Oh, and please sign your posts using four tildes, or the signature button. ProfessorTofty 04:13, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I did add it on the troll page but it got deleted. The whole reason I even made this article is because as a big HP fan, I was wandering around the wiki for the first time and was amazed that I couldn't stump it. There was nothing in Harry Potter I could think of that wasn't on this page. Then I searched troll bogeys, and was surprised that there was no article for it. I promptly made an account, and created an article for it. The reason this wiki was so amazing for me was because it had everything on it, and I wanted to make sure it stayed that way by adding something that wasn't there. I know it might not be the most important information to be missing, but that's still the whole reason this site is successful. Just voicing my thoughts.Flozzlenoozle 23:15, May 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think I am leaning towards keeping the article. It is a fairly well-known line in the Harry Potter books/films ("Ugh -- troll bogeys."), and it isn't nearly as detached as other articles we have, but that definitely merit inclusion (i.e. Caxambu Style Borborygmus Potion, or Goblet of Fire casket). Also, it would be very awkward to have a paragraph on the Troll article saying 'Trolls secrete grey mucus from their nose which, when dried up, forms lumpy structures that one calls bogeys.' --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:10, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, all right. Honestly, I was only weakly against it, anyway, and you do have a point that it does carry more interest than some of the other subjects that you mentioned. So it's reasonable for it to stay. ProfessorTofty 04:49, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Is it the same thing that is mentionned in the Ravenclaw welcome message on Pottermore? "The Gryffindors are OK. If I had a criticism, I’d say Gryffindors tend to be show-offs. They’re also much less tolerant than we are of people who are different; in fact, they’ve been known to make jokes about Ravenclaws who have developed an interest in levitation, or the possible magical uses of troll bogies, or ovomancy, which (as you probably know) is a method of divination using eggs. Gryffindors haven’t got our intellectual curiosity, whereas we’ve got no problem if you want to spend your days and nights cracking eggs in a corner of the common room and writing down your predictions according to the way the yolks fall. In fact, you’ll probably find a few people to help you." --   Famini    talk    contribs   08:43, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

Great pointFlozzlenoozle 02:48, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

There's also a Harry Potter Trading Card Game named "Troll Bogies". --   Famini    talk    contribs   20:49, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:04, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone! Is it possible to ask for advice about whether a page is delete-worthy on here?

I recently made a page named wand flexibility, but it has been submitted for deletion.

I don't particularly mind if it is deleted, but I was just wondering whether anyone could check it out and give me their views?

Thanks,

— TGWD ϟ

I think we should look to what degree this subject is covered in the wiki's wand page. If it isn't there jet, we could merge the two pages. However if the information is already there, we should delete this page. It just isn't that big a subject to deserve a page of it's own.Coleon 20:56, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Coleon for the advice :) This is all I could pick up about wand flexibility on the main wand page:

"Other important characteristics of a wand are its length and its rigidity, ranging from "unyielding" to "springy." All of these different factors have some effect on the overall use of the wand itself, but it is currently unknown what they actually indeed do."

The information on wand flexibillity you found is indeed more than what's stated on the wond page. We will need some other opinions on this matter however to decide on this matter. Anyone who'd like to share their opinion?Coleon 21:12, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

As long as this article is well written and its subject properly developed, I'm for keeping the article, as we did with wand core and wand wood. If this deserves its own Pottermore own entry, I think it does here, too. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:16, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

The issue I see is that, unlike the wood and core which are physical parts of the wand, flexibility is just a quality of it. And it also doesn't technically have its own Pottermore entry; it's lumped with wand length. Not to mention that doesn't necessarily mean much regardless; we don't have articles on, say, "Ghost Plots" or "Measurements". -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:43, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Really should've checked the Pottermore entry before saying anything about it; kindly disregard that argument of mine. That being said, I am not sure I vote "keep" or "merge with 'wand' article". It seems important enough for Rowling to describe it, and for having attributed a specific flexibility to each user's wand (and to virtually every character's wand we know the characteristics of - I could see a table on the article with individual wands and their described rigidity, with an interpretation based on the Pottermore info). If we keep this, though, we would have to create "wand length" as well. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:50, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in favor of merging this into wand or wandlore (or both). As 1337star noted, while cores and woods are actual physical materials, length and flexibility are more characteristics or properties. - Nick O'Demus 09:47, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

There is another point why I agree with 1337star and Nick O'Demus. There are much more known wand woods and wand cores than there are for length and flexibility.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 12:03, May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, as that seemed to be the consensus. The information can be added to the page about wands, if it is not already there. ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:04, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Marked as non-notable and kept for the time being -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:07, November 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not for or against this article, but when I saw that it was a candidate for deletion, I had to act. My sole and only argument for its deletion is this: Have you seen how many other random pages pertain to random Death Eaters briefly seen in the films? If this page is deleted, they all should be deleted. For whatever reason this should be deleted, then that same reason applies to the rest. AlastorMoody 04:53, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

We could eliminate all of those articles in a flash if we could just pass the notability policy, which for some reason seems to be stuck in eternal limbo. But so long as the others are sticking around, I agree that threre's nothing in particular about this article that makes it different from those othes and thus worthy of deletion, unless by some chance it's actually a duplicate of one of the other umpteen that already listed. ProfessorTofty 04:49, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept per normal standard -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:27, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

If this page is "massively unnecessary", then why don't we go ahead and delete all of the other pages which are seemingly unnecessary. There are countless pages that pertain to food, I don't see why this one is any different. AlastorMoody 00:56, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I completely agree with you. There are pages for 'fired tomatos' so why delete something similar if you don't delete anything else. ZRSFizzyBongs (talk) 20:39, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept - notable per guidelines -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:24, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

There is an article that's tagged for deletion. This page covers episodes in which they parody Harry Potter in various ways. The reason it's been tagged is because it's been discussed in a talk page. I personally think this page shouldn't be deleted as it is relavent as a parody, and should have it's own page, rather than a single slot on a talk page.

- Shadow Seer 04:09, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think the notability guidelines are clear - The Simpsons and other such parodies are notable based on the guidelines outlined. I'm going to go ahead and remove the delete tag from that this and other such articles. If there's any further concerns, then we need to have a proper discussion about it. ProfessorTofty 07:09, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Even by this wiki's large inclusionism standards, this article is a bit much. It's not a large-scale battle or a duel between two wizards like the other similar articles, it's just Fluffy chasing Harry down a corridor. And it's not even canon to boot. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 20:47, May 30, 2012 (UTC)

'Course, but this kind of mini-game, you had already report on this wiki:

• Whirlwind
• Bean Bonus Room
  • House Point Ceremony Chamber
• etc.

They can also be (to use your own words) "bit much", not? -- Caliméro (talk) 11:30, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I can kind of see the point there - those are all other mini-games that have their own articles. I'm inclined towards weak keep. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:35, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference here is in what is being covered. Whirlwind covers a spell effect of some kind, whereas Bean Bonus Room and House Point Ceremony Chamber cover locations in Hogwarts Castle. This article covers an event. There are plenty of events with official names, whether through chapter titles, video game level names, etc. Having articles for all of them, particularly when they get as minor as this, just seems like a rather large stretch. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 16:42, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

I feel I must agree with Star; Whirlwind is a spell effect, Bean Bonus Room and House Point Ceremony Chamber cover places at Hogwarts which may or may not be canon (not every room at Hogwarts was explained in canon); this, however, is a non-canon article about a dog chasing a kid down a hallway. The book would have said, "One day, Fluffy chased Harry down a corridor" or something. So if this were a vote I'd say delete. Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:38, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. I agree, not really much point. Delete. And that's three, that's enough. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:43, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted by Nick O'Demus -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:20, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; this is sort of a gray idea. It's true that it's not actually mentioned in the film dialogue, but by the same standards, the argument that was used a while back against the article Dinosaur is really similar. The objector made a good point that the only actual mention is that Harry said that the only thing that has bigger bones than Madame Maxime is a dinosaur, and the article really doesn't add much value other than to reference that. In this case, the distinction is that the character didn't actually mention the phrase "Giacometti" out loud, but in terms of actual content, it still seems like both articles have the same amount of value. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:09, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

I think bear is a better article for comparison here. Bears are never mentioned in any character's dialogue, but the text of the books tells us Harry mistakes Hagrid for a bear at a distance. This is Harry's personal thoughts and opinions, it's an in-universe comparison. Giacometti, on the other hand, is the opinion of the (out of universe) scriptwriter on what that scene should look like. Rowling (the real Rowling, not the in-universe one) has described one of the stories in The Tales of Beedle the Bard as possibly inspired by The Pardoner's Tale. Would we make an article on that? I should think not, and I think the opinion of the scriptwriter on what a scene should resemble is in the same league. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:44, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't make an article on that, but we have made articles such as Pride and Prejudice based on nothing more than that the title once appeared on a bookshelf on Rowling's official site and nowhere else. Which I've quibbled about before and backed down on, but I still feel like it's another example of an article that provides little content of value based on something that appeared in passing and never appeared in an actual Harry Potter book; whose actual relation to the series is dubious, even if Rowling was inspired in general by the works of Jane Austen. But maybe I'm protesting too much. I'm probably slightly cranky right now - I barely got any sleep last night, yet for some reason I'm mostly awake and alert right now, though I get the feeling I'll crash later... ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:35, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I guess we've gotten a little off-track here. In case I wasn't clear, my opinion regarding this particular article is delete. I believe that's a consensus, since the original creator of the article has also gone on record on its talk page to say that the creation of the article was a mistake. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:12, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Keep and improve ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:39, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

1337star, why did you tag this one for deletion? I'm sure you have a good reason, but it seems a bit odd when we've had the article since 2006. Do you think what's in there is already or could be better covered elsewhere? ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:20, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I had forgotten to bring this up. It seems like a rather useless article to me. I'd think if it was created today, without its history, it would be speedy deleted. It's merely an incomplete list of wizarding locations, and it's not even in-universe. Wizarding world is more or less the same article, but in-universe and much more detailed and complete. If a list of locations is wanted, there's Category:Locations. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:44, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, if it's just a much-less-detailed version of another article, then there's not point in keeping it around. I'm not in favour of content that is nothing but a weak duplicate and based on that, I'd also say delete, or simply make it into a redirect to Wizarding world. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:29, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion, linked on far too many existing pages to reasonably delete. Will work to improve...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

No consensus, kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:14, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

While I admit I'm somewhat reluctant to flag an article created by an admin for deletion, I do have to say an article on The Casual Vacancy has no place here. We are the Harry Potter Wiki, not the J.K. Rowling Wiki, and this book, unless I'm unaware of some new information released about it, is not a part of the Harry Potter series. To use some large wikis as examples, Wookieepedia doesn't have articles on THX 1138 or American Graffiti, Memory Alpha doesn't have articles on Pretty Maids All in a Row or Planet Earth, and so on. While I realize we aren't other wikis, I see no reason to have an article on something that's only relation to the series is being written by the same author. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 04:39, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering for a while if maybe we should have an article about it and was considering floating the idea on the forum. (And it seems we think alike, because I had been considering the exact same examples regarding other wikis that don't have that sort of page.) But if we want to refer to other wikis, then consider the Redwall Wiki, which does have pages on Castaways of the Flying Dutchman, Ribbiting Tales and other non-Redwall works. Just something think about. P.S.: If the article was kept, I think we should nevertheless delink everything else within it not related to Potter, i.E. Little, Brown and Company, Joel Hollan, etc. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:47, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

This was created strictly so the Casual Vacancy slider item on the main page didn't lead to a dead end (now that the book's title and plot details have been known for several months, though, I'm surprised that an article for it had not already been created by someone else).

JKR's oeuvre to date includes the Potter novels, their companion guides, and The Casual Vacancy, so it's not like we currently run the risk of opening the floodgates to a slew of articles on non-Potter JKR books. Even if JKR goes on to write more non-Potter books (as I hope she does), the The Casual Vacancy will always hold a special status, because it's the first non-Potter book that she wrote. As the book's release date nears, I'm sure she'll give interviews in which she discusses what it was like writing this book after leaving behind Harry Potter, which can of course be incorporated into the article to increase the Potter-relevancy. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 05:01, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. I think the very same reason why we deleted the articles on J.K. Rowling's family members would apply here as well; this is the Harry Potter Wiki, not J.K. Rowling Wiki. That being said, I, at the same time, feel that we should keep it, given it's special link to the Potter series (as Starstuff pointed out).

I'd really like if Rowling wrote Casual Vacancy as it was happening in the same universe as the Harry Potter series (i.e. if she included a passage of a character overhearing something strange on the radio ("What in blazes is a Flitterbloom?!") or a brief cameo appearance of a wizard in the strange assortment of clothes they usually wear amongst Muggles.) That'd settle this. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 13:17, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

No consensus or weak keep after a nearly a month; I think we need to come to a decision on this fast, as the delete tag looks dumb on an article we are featuring on the homepage. Either we kill the tag, or decide to delete the article. Currently, the general consensus seems weakly for leave it around. ProfessorTofty (talk) 07:59, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

As I created the article, it would be incorrect for me to close this discussion, but if another admin would do so, that would be great. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 08:56, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Removing as no consensus/weak keep myself unless there are further comments or something else done within 24 hours. Only one solid vote for deletion; all other responses have indicated "keep." ProfessorTofty (talk) 21:36, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 13:28, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with deletion. What troubles me isn't that it wasn't mentioned during the official interview, but that it wasn't mentioned by Rowling. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:50, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. An interviewer could conceivably ask JKR, "Do you think Hagrid is crazy enough to try to crossbreed the chupacabra with a poodle?", during an interview, to which she could answer, "Yes." That wouldn't serve as proof that the chupacabra exists in the Potter universe, because, in that case, the chupacabra would simply be a hypothetical example thrown out to help make a point about Hagrid's questionable crossbreeding efforts. The mention of a "Hogwarts Muggle Liaison Office" in the Pottercast interview was simply a joke. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 09:16, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for deletion. This "Muggle Liaison Office" was mentioned only as an introductory gag prior to the interview proper. We have to remember here that the canon source is Rowling, not PotterCast. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 10:49, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a consensus, then? That's already three, assuming you don't even count the original nominator. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:47, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:39, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

This actor is, I feel, not worthy of an article. While we do have articles on actors who scenes ended up being cut (Rik Mayall, Luke Newberry, etc.), from the source, it sounds like he never even filmed his scenes. If it was a major actor, I could see justifying the page, but surely this can merely be mentioned on the pages of his family members that were in the film (if we have pages on them, that is)? -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 05:09, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion - I'm for not having stuff that's only tangentially related to the wiki's mission. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:08, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Deleted as an obvious copyright-vio from Wikipedia, article was previously deleted twice.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted by Starstuff -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:13, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I am against the deletion of the page Wizarding Families with the Rare Colouring of Blond(e) Hair because I think that with a bit of help it could be helpful. I created the page to show that the malfoys were a good example of a pure-blood wizarding family that had blonde hair. Instead of putting a delete notice, why can't people just help improve the article. I looked at the notice and it informed me to either write here or improve the article, which I did. It reposted the notice again, and while I would normally understand, can't people just help improve it. I hope to create a main article shortly that over-views how certain colours of hair are common in wizarding families, where this article would be a side-along help. If this article is deleted, I will end up putting it on the main one, which may cause some confusion. All help will be appreciated. Thank You.

ZRSFizzyBongs (talk) 17:47, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - non-encyclopedic and purely original research type article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 18:56, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Ditto. The point of the article doesn't get across, when you consider that Muggle-borns, Squibs, Half-Bloods and even Muggles can be blond. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:01, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with the others. There isn't really any point of it. Plus, some of it is fanon, it can't be said for sure that the rest of the Malfoys had blond hair. SorenaJ 17:31, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Delete as original nominator. Notable family traits such as hair colour can be covered in the various family articles. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:38, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

And that makes a consensus - four. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:40, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted by Seth Cooper -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:09, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Is this an official name? Neither a Google search, checking some walkthroughs, nor watching a video of the door being constructed and entered showed any indication of this name being used in-game. If this name isn't official, I personally don't think this is article-worthy on its own merits as a conjecturally named article. It's just a framing device for accessing the "Harry's Destiny" bonus level. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 16:13, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Many titles are unofficial like blood quills, thats why theres that message;

"Are you a wizard or not?"

The title of this article is conjectural. Although it is based on canonical information, the actual name is conjecture and may be supplanted at any time by additional information released from canonical sources. If this occurs, please move this page to the appropriate title.

Besides we know what I'm talking about and I've given a description, thats what matters.

manundercover

Yes, but I'm not saying it should be deleted because the title is unoffical. I'm saying it should be deleted because (in my opinion, of course) it isn't worth an article on its own merits. There are plenty of things that are only article worthy because they have an official name. For example, "Frank Bryce's matches" would be a ridiculous article, whereas Blishen's Safety Matches is not. When something lacks an official name, it needs to actually be unique and important to be worth coverage. To use your example, blood quills are an important plot point for Order of the Phoenix, as well as a unique magical artefact belonging to Umbridge. This is just a door to access a bonus level. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:45, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:35, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete on all three of these - Occlumens, "Ligilimens," and "Mediwitch." These are nothing more than badly disguised copies of Occlumency, Legilimency and Mediwizard respectively with a few minor tweaks and I'm surprised the prior two haven't already been been deleted. I suppose "Occlumens" might be worth keeping as a redirect, but "Ligilimens" is just a misspelling and I'm not sure I see much point in keeping "Mediwitch" as a redirect, given that I'm not sure that term ever even appeared in the books. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:22, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 21:06, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support. -- Hunniebunn ^{(Owl me!)} September 27, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Deleted during a routine purge; unused -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:55, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Surely it could just be renamed to an unknown student in their first year. Just a thought. ZRSFizzyBongs (talk) 21:37, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:24, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Support deletion of candlelight dinner as non-article-worthy. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:36, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

I was rather hoping it would be speedy deleted without discussion, personally, as it's rather obviously not article-worthy (no offense meant to the IP that created it, of course). And I support deletion, obviously, as the person who added the tag. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 17:43, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Kept -- ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about this one. They're all canon and therefore all theoretically get an article, however, each individual page really doesn't provide much info. I could see an argument for merging them, but my general thought it is a weak Keep. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:05, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

If anything, I'd say merge; we could easily make a "hub" article as we did with the unidentified Hogwarts staff, with the names and prices of the soups. --Hunniebunn (talk) 00:11, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Don't merge, certainly don't delete. Having a small amount of info doesn't mean anything, at least based on how we've been doing things up until now (a method I support). Unlike the unidentified characters, these soups are canonically and uniquely named, and thus are as worthy of an article as anything. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 00:19, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to put this down as speedy keep, as there is no precedent for deleting this sort of article. ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:43, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Keep and improve; moved to Inbreeding. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 15:30, December 30, 2012 (UTC)

I move for deletion. The wiki is not the place for essays and I don't really see how this one can be saved, though I wanted to get some other thoughts first rather than straight deleting. ProfessorTofty (talk) 17:23, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

How about keeping the article, after a thorough clean-up and expansion, and moving it to simply "Inbreeding", to avoid the essay-like title? I think there's enough information to warrant its own article, and it's an aspect of wizarding life that is referred to more than once in the series. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:37, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it, but it's going to require quite a bit of work. Okay, let's improve the article and try to save it. I have some other projects to take care of at the moment, but if I have time today, I'll try to make some improvements. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:09, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.